Background
Richard Brillhart was convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography and sentenced to four hundred eighty months imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the warrantless search of a file identified by Google through hash matching, the double jeopardy implications of his dual convictions, and the application of a sentencing enhancement.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Google’s hash-value matching protocol is a valid private search because it relies on a human review of a file followed by a near-perfect digital match, ensuring law enforcement learns nothing new. The court further ruled that possession and distribution are distinct offenses under the Blockburger test. Finally, the court found the district court erred in applying the pattern-of-activity enhancement because the probation violation did not match the specific statutory references required by the Guidelines commentary.
What it means going forward
Law enforcement may rely on hash-value matching by technology companies as a valid private search to justify warrantless inspections of digital files. Sentencing courts must ensure that pattern-of-activity enhancements are based only on prior offenses that strictly match the statutory definitions in the Guidelines commentary.